Is Christianity Polytheistic?

You may well think this is ineffectual. But many Christians do not think that Satanic worship is ineffectual at all. In fact they fear it greatly. Have you never seen the Christian furore over the idea that Satanic prayers are being subliminally implanted into heavy metal music? Or the Christian concerns over teenagers dabbling with the occult in a manner that they believe leads headlong into Satanic worship and eternal damnation through playing Dungeons and Dragons? Do you think they agree with you that worshipping Satan is ineffectual?How about those who believe in, and fear, Satanic possession? What about Pope Benedict’s assertion that the world is in the grip of Satan and his plans to re-implement exorcist squads? Exorcisms based around prayers to the Archangel Michael for heavens sake. By your own definitions here these practises are surely polytheistic? No. Because your mother isn’t supernatural. But the virgin Mary is. And millions flock to worship her and pray to her because they believe that doing so is supernaturally effective. Even if it is effective in the sense of having supernatural influence over the CEO of supernature that is Yahweh. By your own criterium of effectiveness and supernaturality this would again seem polytheistic. No? Hypothetical or otherwise it is recognisably a god concept in conceptual terms alone. Nobody need actually worship it for this to be the case. But if someone believed that worshiping this supernatural entity would actually have an effect they would not be able to legitimately call themselves an atheist would they? Even if they did not worship this being themselves. By your own definitions. I would agree that it is part of it. As is supernaturality. On this much we seem to agree. The question is are many Christians implicitly acknowledging the effectiveness of worshipping supernatural entities other than Yahweh? Their evident fear of Satan worship alone would suggest that the answer to this is indisputably — Yes.

Don't play dum. You are the one that said they "really exist". You even went so far as to say that it would be a little "unconventional" to worship something that "really exists". So what are these godly pencils that you think "really exist"? Let's take the pencil theism example above. What you did is take worship as your criteria without acknowledging the fact that in order to worship something as a god that thing needs to be imbued with additional recognisably godly conceptual attributes by those who believe that it is a god. A wooden pencil un-imbued with any additional conceptual attributes is simply a material wooden pencil. Not a god by anybody's reckoning. But a pencil theist will have imbued his pencil with conceptual attributes like (but not limited to) being supernatural, being consciousness and being able to willfully affect either this material reality or the supernatural reality in which that thing resides.You overlooked the conceptual component of what it necessarily means to actually believe that something actually is a "god". This oversight of conceptual meaning is what makes your statement look silly. And just like every other word in the English language the word "god" has common conceptual meaning that is not dependent wholly on the individual beliefs of those using it. That is my point here. You have talked about tiers of beings. You have never stated anything other than that. As the pencil-theism debacle above demonstrates this is insufficient for identifying god concepts. In exactly the same way I identify anything else. Why would I do any differently? Let's imagine a game of guess the concept. I am thinking of a concept. You can ask questions to see if you can identify what that concept is.After some questions you have ascertained that concept X is a brown furry mammal that barks at postmen and licks his balls. You correctly deduce that concept X is a dog.Similarly with concept Y. You ask some questions and are informed that concept Y is an immaterial eternal entity who blights the crops of those who fail to appease him through ritual human sacrifice. You correctly deduce that concept Y is a god.Why do you think the term "god" is different to any other with regard to being conceptually recognisable independently of individual belief?When Christians define god to maintain their monotheistic facade you cheer them on. When Christians define good in such a way as to be able to claim that a genocidal despot is incapable of evil you are first in line to give them a conceptual trouncing.Why? What is the difference? Why is one concept defined wholly in terms of their religion and the other not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I wholly agree that I am not a god. But your explanation as to why I am not a god has once again wiped out the vast majority of human theism and demoted the great majority of historical gods to mere objects of atheistic superstition.May Apollo curse you.There are some intelligent people taking part in this thread. People whom I think it is worth discussing this stuff with (whatever disagreements I may have with their position on this issue)But you, alas, are not one of them.

I shall leave others to review your remarks throughout this thread on the burning issue of pencil theism. They can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not you have conflated the need for conceptual criteria to be applied with simply labeling something as a god. Is that really how you conceptualise? Like a walking dictionary? I seriously doubt it. We humans do not walk around applying dictionary style universal definitions to concepts in order to label them. In fact that is precisely what we do NOT do. That is exactly how human conceptualisation does NOT work. Instead we conceptualise by means of common qualities and association. This is why a brown furry animal that licks it’s balls and barks at postmen can be recognised by pretty much all of us here as almost certainly referring to a dog. Despite the fact that not all dogs are brown, have anything against postmen and, by virtue of sexual physiology alone, the majority won't even possess balls to lick.No dictionary definition of dog would include such criteria. Yet in terms of recognition by association these criteria provide a far more realistic example of how our minds actually label concepts. Likewise we recognise god concepts by association. NOT by definition. Which is why the crop blighting ethereal eternal entity who must be appeased by means of human sacrifice I mentioned in my last post to you is recognisable by all of us as a god. Despite possessing some recognisably godly attributes that other gods will not and lacking some recognisably godly attributes that other gods will possess.It is these qualities I am suggesting are religion-independent and able to make something recognisable as objectively godly. Or (as is the case with my own godly status) not godly. Whether something is objectively recognisable as a god or not has nothing to do with some silly be-all and-end-all universal definition.Now if we were to ask a room full of people to draw, describe or depict in some way their idea of a god of evil what do you think they would come up with? What common qualities would this concept possess?(When I was a teacher this was the sort of thing I could have actually tested out — alas I am not provided with these opportunities for social experimentation these days) Then why do you keep relentlessly seeking dictionary style universal definitions as if this is the be-all-and-end-all of human conceptualisation? Our minds just do not work in the way you are assuming. Then it would seem that you should agree with my analysis regarding conceptual association and objective qualities. By the rules of Christianity for many Christians God is good because God is the sole source of all that is goodYet when Christians tell you that they believe that their God is incapable of evil you have no qualms telling them just how wrong they are. How do you reconcile this with your claim above?Yahweh the genocidal despot of the OT is "good" in exactly the same way that biblical Christians are "monotheistic". I.e. purely by virtue of internal Christian definition.When you dispute that Yahweh of the OT is "good" are you unjustifiably imposing your own personal definition of "good" on Christianity? Or are you referring to a concept of "good" that is objectively recognisable and independent of any specific religion?When I dispute that biblical Christians are "monotheists" am I unjustifiably imposing my own definition of "god" on Christianity? Or am I referring to a concept of "god" that is objectively recognisable and independent of any specific religion?Why exactly do you reject the Christian defnition of "good" whilst inssting that we must accept the Christian definiion of "god"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This was your founding statement. And yet as has been demonstrated we can quite easily describe and create concepts which are recognisable as gods but which have no association with any religion whatsoever Your capitalisation of the word God in reference to every single individual polytheistic god concept seems unwarranted. It certainly doesn't seem to be a universal convention. Can I ask where you are taking this from and why you think it so damning of my argument here? Christianity does indeed define itself to be monotheistic. But (as I am arguing) in terms of also believing in beings which are recognisably godly in terms of objective qualities - Many Christians are conceptually polytheistic. I agree that it is academic and inconsequential. As are many EvC discussions. So according to you neither of the terms "god" nor "good" have conceptual meaning that is anything other than wholly subjective and individual and which can be used in whatever way one needs them to be used to uphold ones personal belief system.How many other words are similarly subjective?It is a wonder we manage to communicate with each other given the complete lack of common meaning most words would have if we apply your arguments across the board.

You are doing that a lot more than you used to. You know that whatever position I take here I take it vehemently and over fervently. It is nothing personal. I would debate my own grandmother in the same way if I came across her in a format such as this (admittedly this is unlikely)In truth I started this thread because I was bored and I thought it would be contentious (no doubt CS would call this "trolling") with some of our biblical Christian contingent whom I always find good for a laugh. I also thought we might end up discussing more the historical roots of Christianity (as Mod tried to do) which relates well to the book I have been reading recently. I didn't expect such strong opposition from people like yourself and Dr. A. But frankly that has made it all the more fun and thought provoking in an unexpected way. To take the effectiveness of worship as ones be-all-and-end-all criteria for recognising gods or belief in gods is a good starting point but ultimately inadequate as a universal criteria. Those who believe in a deistic non-interfering god would consider worship to be just as pointless and ineffectual as an atheist would. Yet they still believe in concept that is conceptually recognisable as godly. I don't think it has changed. You seem to base this misconception on the thread's (admittedly provocative) title rather than the contents of the OPFrom the OP:

quote:

---

Biblical Christianity is monotheistic. Right? One single god?

​

I know many Biblical Christians will insist that theirs is a monotheistic religion. I know they will insist that theirs is superior in some sense to those more "primitive" polytheistic religions that went before because of this. But they are just being inconsistent in their use of the term "god".

---

I tried to make it clear I was primarily talking about Biblical Christians (i.e. those who actually believe that the stories in the bible are real rather than metaphorical). You seem to have missed this intention. Then ultimately we agree on a great deal. Even if not my motives.

Given that I have no idea what associationism in philosophy is I am probably not adhering to that school of thought. I too think that there are recognisably godly criterion. My point is that these are religion independent and can thus be applied objectively to label a concept as "god".But that is not the same as a list of criteria that all gods must have. Which seems to be what Dr. A was trying to get out of me and which is what I have spent much of this thread arguing is both impossible and irrelevant. Other than removing the word "physical" in this context - I would basically agree with that I think.

And my entire point in this thread is that the term "god" is not a meaningless label devoid of conceptual meaning. That it is instead a term with common conceptual meaning that is not reliant on the specific definition imposed by any religion. "concept of a generic (g)od label" - What does that mean? Does it have conceptual qualities? If so what are they? If it is solely a label can it be applied to anything at all? (e.g. bog standard wooden pencils un-imbued with any supernatural or other recognisably godly properties whatsoever) So it is fine to describe Yahweh of the OT as "good" because Christians define it to be so?
If words have no objective meaning at all then all communication becomes impossible. Thus such words must have common conceptual meaning. To some extent at least. Maybe your subjective use of the term "fun" has nothing at all in common with mine Anyway - Why do you think being "academic and inconsequential" precludes something from being "fun"?

So you say "god" has no conceptual meaning outside the context of a particular religion.But previously you say: So "god" has no conceptual meaning outside the context of a particular religion but the concept of "god" exists even without any of the specifics that have been applied to it. Can you see why this might seem somewhat contradictory?In order to clarify perhaps you could tell us what qualities this non-specific=religion concept of "god" possesses? And could bog standard wooden pencils un-imbued with any supernatural consciousness ever qualify as such?

That is lovely to hear. No. I am not telling anyone what they believe. I am perfectly aware that biblical Christians believe themselves to be monotheists in exactly the same way that I accept that biblical Christians genuinely do believe that Yahweh is incapable of evil.But I am suggesting that by any non-specific-religion common meaning of either "good" or "god" they are wrong on both counts. No. I am well aware that there is an internal Christian distinction. I am simply suggesting that this distinction is no more valid than the assertion that genocidal rape inducing Yahweh is capable only of good.Both rely on internal Christian definitions which there is no reason to apply if considering these questions objectively. I fully expected biblical Christians to tell me where to go in this thread. What is less obvious is why you laugh at them when they apply their unique Christians specific notion of what is "good" but insist that we all accept their definition of "god".Why not apply the common conceptual meaning in both cases consistently?

Well you would say that wouldn't you? Perhaps you can definitively clarify your position regarding "god" as a term with conceptual meaning Vs god as a subjective label by answering the following question I originally posed in Message 230Dave believes in the existence of the ancient Greek pantheon of gods. But he is a particular fan of Zeus. Dave thinks it is unfair that Zeus, being so obviously superior and top tier as compared to the other Greek gods, is lumped in with Apollo, Aphrodite etc. etc. in terminological terms. Dave decides to rectify this situation. Dave decides that he will from now on refer to all those members of the Greek pantheon as guds except Zeus. Zeus remains a god. In fact as far as Dave is concerned Zeus is the only god. The rest are guds.Can Dave now legitimately call himself a monotheist? As previously discussed human methods of conceptual labeling don't function like mobile perception enabled dictionaries. So why insist on this?If you want a dictionary definition of god then I suggest you look one up. There are a multitude available. We could engage in argumentum dictionarium ad-infinitum but in terms of conceptual meaning the results are unlikely to be very enlightening or satisfying. Much like your rather inadequate definition of "life". Some concepts are unable to be satisfactorily summed up in a line or two of universal attributes. Well in what conceptual sense are Loki, Thor, Baal, Kali or Apollo gods but Satan not? Unless you can answer that without simply asserting that we must accept the subjective labels imposed by individual religions there would seem to be nothing more that you can say on the subject. I have never disputed that biblical Christians genuinely believe themselves to be monotheists. Any more than I dispute that biblical Christians genuinely consider Yahweh to be incapable of evil.I am simply suggesting that by the common religion-independent conceptual meaning of either of these terms they are wrong on both counts. By any common religion-independent conceptual meaning of the term "god" biblical Christians are polytheistic. By any common religion-independent conceptual meaning of the term "good" Yahweh of the OT is a bit of an evil bastard.Why do they get the last word on "god" but not on "good"?
Be specific.

So by simply re-branding an identical concept with different nomenclature gods can become non-gods. You are back to god as a mere label again. So now let us examine your position on god as a concept: Of course I am a God. Having changed my name to God I am a God in exactly the same sense that Paul McCartney (for example) is a Paul. In what sense are you saying that I am not a God?Be specific. This is not a rhetorical question. In fact it is arguably the key question to our differences here. They believe in a host of entities which could accurately be described as gods by all but their own internal definition. Me too. That is why I raised them in parallel. Indeed.Based on their internal definition biblical Christians believe that they believe in a god that is good. We both disagree that the god they believe in can accurately be described as good.Based on their internal definitions Biblical Christians believe that they believe in only one god. I am suggesting that many of the other entities in which they also believe can accurately be described as gods whether they choose to label them as such or not. Would you like to define the common conceptual meaning of the term "good"?And could you actually answer why it is that we can all agree that conceptually I quite blatantly don't qualify as a god?

Which is it?And are you now saying that there is no common conceptual meaning to any words (e.g. "good") or is it just the term "god" you consider to be devoid of any common conceptual meaning?

So you believe.Both with regard to the definition of god such that you can proclaim yourself to be a monotheist and with regard to your definition of good such that Jehovah is incapable of evil.

Precisely. OK I am perfectly aware that by the self styled definition of Christianity biblical Christians believe in only one God. This is not in dispute and never has been. By their own internal definitions they are monotheists. But by any religion-independent analysis they are polytheists. That is my point here. Explain to me why it is "stupid" to suggest that we can apply a religion-independent use of the term "god" when objectively analysing the beliefs of biblical Christians?Why must we un-questioningly adhere to their rules on this?